Jan 22, 2012 || World News

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Why Obama Gave Away the Middle East

Why Obama Gave Away the Middle East

Posted By Jamie Glazov On January 20, 2012

Editors' note: The world is at this moment witnessing a horrific phenomenon: Islamists coming to power throughout the Middle East under the guise of a supposed "Arab Spring" – while the President of the United States is facilitating the entire process. Indeed, President Obama is reaching his hand out in solidarity to Islamists and enabling their solidification of power throughout the region. While displaying a disastrous weakness with Iran and allowing the Mullahs to move ahead aggressively with their nuclear weapon program, the Obama administration is helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt and the Taliban regain power in Afghanistan.

In these tragic and disturbing circumstances, the editors of Frontpage felt it timely and relevant to rerun the video of Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov's interview with Erick Stakelbeck on CBN News in May 2009, in which he discussed his book "United in Hate," which crystallizes why the Left is in league with our deadly jihadi enemies. The interview explains precisely why a leftist like Obama is pursuing a disastrous foreign policy that is helping Islamists gain and consolidate power throughout the Middle East. Below is the first part of the two part interview. We will run the second part in our next issue.

Part I:

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/20/2-4-2/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

CHARLIE REESE"S FINAL COLUMN

Charlie Reese's Final Column

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...
He has been a journalist for 49 years.
He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican nor democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.

They and they alone, have the power.

They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom, if agreed, stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!

PISS ON THE TALIBAN!

Dog pee would really make them smell better.

http://patriotnetworktv.com/editorials/pissonthem.html

Dutch White, U.S. Marines (Ret)

I suppose that if a person does not look forward to being shot at and possibly even be pissed on after his unsuccessful try at playing soldier, then maybe they should not be out there messin' with our Marines and our Army Special Forces types in the first place. It is not a sane, safe, nor sober thing to do.

The Taliban not only decapitate our people when we mess up and get captured by them, but they do it to their own people, as well.

They drag bodies of our dead American soldiers through the streets of their towns.

They beat and kick wounded, and even dead, American Soldiers bodies until they are nothing more than bloody pulps of flesh and bone.

They bury, up to their necks, and then stone their own women and young girls to death for the "offense" of merely showing their faces, or maybe just a bare ankle in public.

But then, you may have noticed, they cry like babies when some return hate makes its way back to them in the form of these four Marines taking a leak on some dead enemy bodies.

Oh, the horror. The sheer horror of the scene that lay before them. Four Marines in full combat gear, loaded for bear and taking no crap off anyone, taking a whiz on some slimy, murdering, thuggish, scum of the earth.

Well, screw all of those people that are protesting about the incident. Everyone surely should have gotten the word by now that the Marine Corps Grunts and Air Crewmen are not over there on some kind of mission of mercy, much less some kind of good-will tour. To the contrary, the Marines have a job to do and the devil himself best not stand in the way of these Marines accomplishing their mission(s). If they piss on some dead bodies of their enemy that were in the process of trying to kill them just scant seconds or minutes earlier, then so be it. More power to them. The bodies they pissed on are probably much cleaner now than they have been in months, maybe even years.

This is not something that I might personally do if I were over there with our Grunts right now (but, then again, I might. I don't know). It don't mean nothing. Means they needed to take a piss. BFD. Break out a ruler and swat the backs of their right hands two times apiece, order them to never do it again (strictly because of the public outcry it obviously causes in liberals), and then have them saddle up and get back out there on patrol. These men have work to do. The only person involved in this whole affair that should be reprimanded in any manner whatsoever is the idiot that thought it would be great fun to post it out on Youtube for the whole world to see. If anyone should be in trouble, it is he. Not the pee'ers that thought it was a good time to empty their bladders. Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. I doubt that the person (read: idiot) that posted it to Youtube thinks it was such a good idea now.

I believe that it is high-time for the totally ineffective, totally gutless liberal progressives that are unsuccessfully trying to run this country to get the hell out of the business of trying to carry on a war. Any war, anywhere in the world. It is not what they do best, nor has it ever been. They cost us more lives than they save with their wimpish ways. They should just stick with being sleazy lawyers and sticking it to the American people every four years or every eight years when America screws up and lets them have another go at it. War is NOT what they do best. Just look at the ROE (Rules Of Engagement) in this war that they have handcuffed our Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force with. The ROE and the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) are totally unacceptable and are not the ROE or SOFA of a country that might expect to win a war at any time in the near future. In a war you go out and you kill all the bad guys you can find and you do your very best to break as many of his things as you possibly can. That is the whole idea about being engaged in a WAR. In a war there is always going to be collateral damage. Innocent people are going to die. That is just the way it is, and that is why, when discussing war, you normally hear the term: "War is hell!" I can vouch for that saying. I have personal knowledge of war being hell. Been there - done that.

When our country's servicemen and servicewomen are deployed somewhere overseas engaging the enemy in carrying out a mission that our nation has sent them over there to do, the citizens of our great country should go to the various airports and docks and see them off to rousing cheers and "good lucks" all around. They should give them all of the praise they can muster, cheering them on while they leave to go do whatever it is that they are setting out to accomplish for our country. Then, ideally, all of our Colonels and generals push all of the buttons that may be necessary to be pushed to carry out what our country expects them to do. Then, in due course, when our generals all decide that the war is over and that we have won, and not before then, it will be time to bring our warriors back home, their heads held high in triumph. After the triumphant return of all of our warriors the victory parades in the streets of America to honor them should begin. Then they should all be given 30 days basket (not off the books) leave. After their leave period is up they can then report back in to their respective duty stations around the country and begin training for the next time they may be called upon to travel overseas and go in harm's way.

If these four Marines that pissed on the dead enemy combatants need some disciplining, that is OK. So be it. But the disciplining process should be carried out in the privacy of their Company Commander's Office, and with the Company 1st Sergeant and the four men's Platoon Leader standing by at parade rest. Or, and strictly at the discretion of the Company Commander, the non-judicial punishment Uniform Code of Military Discipline Article 15 hearing (Office Hours) might possibly be pushed up the chain of command to the next higher authority, up to the Battalion Commander. It definitely should not reach Regimental level and most definitely should never be allowed to reach Division level. No, this needs to be cut off at the lowest possible convening authority. One reason, among many others, is that of maintaining the morale of the unit. The morale over there is plenty bad enough already from what I have heard.

As every former active duty and retired veteran already well knows, today's Soldiers and Marines are very busily looking over their shoulders every few seconds to make positively certain that there are no lawyers anywhere in the area observing what is taking place before putting their fingers in the trigger guards of their weapons to return fire while the bad guys are out there trying to kill them. Some of our warriors are dying over there because our men are many times too afraid to return fire because they think that they might possibly wind up in prison for the rest of their lives if a civilian gets hurt or killed during a firefight, and typically a firefight where the Taliban are known to use civilians as human shields to hide behind, cowards that they are, during their ambush attacks.

In no way should these four Marines be condemned in the main stream media, as they have been, before their legal proceedings even begin to take place, nor should they be used in an effort to make some slime-ball politician on the left side of the aisle back in Washington, DC look good by chastising them in news releases for all the world to see and hear.

We need more people like Congressman Allen West running things back there in our capitol, standing up for our Army troops and Marine Grunts all the time. God Bless Him for all his efforts. I wish him continued success. For the good of our country I believe that it is way past time to get rid of people like "RINO" Congressman John McCain, limp-wrist Congressman "Hanoi John" Kerry, and Congressman "admit defeat and bring our boys home" Dennis Kucinich types. Every one of them and all the politicos like them should all be replaced with JUST Allen West-type political leaders. Congressman West is the real deal.

If there are people that do not support our Marines and Special Forces types that are standing in harms way for our country overseas today, so that they (the protestors) do not have to, that is just fine and dandy with me. You don't have to. No harm-no foul. Feel free to go ahead and maintain that attitude for as long as you want to. But, you had best be on your knees every day of your life thanking these four men and all of the other Marines and Special Forces personnel like them. Thank God that there are such men as these out there trudging around in the dark of night and during the heat of the day in enemy territory, providing you with all those liberties and freedoms that you so much take for granted. One of those freedoms is the freedom that you have to express your disapproval of what many times takes place on the battlefields that our servicemen fight on from time to time. That is your right, but you need to think about it first. Consider the damage that you might do not only to our country in the eyes of the world as you express your weakness before them, but to our servicemen and servicewomen, as well. Yes, by all means, enjoy all of your freedoms. They have been, and are today, being bought and paid for daily by these four Marines in question right now, and by many more dedicated men and women just like them.

And, gents, that wraps up my "screed of the day" episode for today. I sincerely hope that you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed bringing it to you.

Have a great rest of the day.

Semper Fi, Dutch
U. S. Marines (Ret)

Touching photo

Too darn funny ~ I love it!

FwdFwtouchingphoto(1).dat

27,000 Computers Participating in OpMegaupload DDoS Attack

http://news.softpedia.com/news/27-000-Computers-Participating-in-OpMegaupload-DDoS-Attack-Exclusive-247709.shtml

January 20th, 2012, 11:08 GMT · By Eduard Kovacs

27,000 Computers Participating in OpMegaupload DDoS Attack (Exclusive)

Since news got out that Megaupload had been closed and some of their administrators arrested, Anonymous hackers called all their supporters to launch massive distributed denial of service attacks against government websites and the ones owned by the media industry and their representatives.

We managed to get in touch with one of the individuals who are aiding Anonymous launch these attacks to find out some details.

It turns out that Internet users from around the world are participating in the attack, which not only represents a protest against the fact that Megaupload is closed down, but also a continuation of the protest against SOPA.

At the time of writing, the participants in the DDOS attack are targeting the online stores of Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) and Warner Bros Records, the main reason being to show them that sales can drop due to other reasons, not only piracy.

One of the protestors, Scout395, has been sending large packets to websites using the HOIC tool, but others are instructed by Anonymous to use LOIC or SLOWORIS. Asked if he's not afraid of being tracked down, Scout395 replied that they were precisely instructed on how to hide their IPs using VPN services.

The IRC channel dedicated to the operation is flooded with users from all around the world, including Denmark, Portugal, Chile, Estonia, Sweden and Norway, Anonymous reports claiming that around 27,000 computers are taking part. It seems that SOPA is not causing waves only in the US.

"SOPA is actually a huge discussion in my school too. Many of the 'computer nerds' around here are outraged," said Scout395, a student from Denmark.

While he has nothing to do with hacking, he joined the protest to show his support.

"I hate the fact that the feds can take down internet websites, and they don't know the consequences of what they are doing. Furthermore, I stand for what Anonymous stands for, and somehow I felt like joining the resistance. I want to be a part of the group that prevented SOPA," he said.

For now, the attacks continue with all the participants proposing new targets. Apple, NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange are just a few of them.

MORROCO: Angry unemployed graduates set themselves on fire, threaten collective suicide

Did anyone bring the marshmellows?

New post on Bare Naked Islam

MORROCO: Angry unemployed graduates set themselves on fire, threaten collective suicide

by barenakedislam

Quick! Somebody show this video to the Occupy Wall Street entitlement whores.

Observers.france2 For the past two weeks, nearly 200 members of the "unemployed graduates" movement have camped out in front of the Ministry of Education in the Moroccan capital Rabat. Some of these protesters threatened to set themselves on fire if they were not immediately given jobs in the public sector. After a clash with police Wednesday, several young men carried out this threat.

The movement is comprised of young people who have completed higher education but now find themselves jobless. According to the latest official figures, more than one third of Morocco's young people are unemployed.

In July 2011, after a sit-in that lasted several days, unemployed graduates in Rabat secured an agreement promising they would be recruited by the public sector this year. Or so they thought – they later discovered that the recruitment would be limited only to those who graduated in 2010. So two weeks ago, 180 of the activists formed "the senior management group excluded from the July 20 agreement."

The group's leader, Mahmoud Houas, had already indicated that things could take a turn for the worse if the authorities did not resolve the situation quickly, and he even hinted at the possibility of collective suicide.

barenakedislam | January 21, 2012 at 12:36 am | Categories: Muslims vs Muslims | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-EYd

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.endtimestoday.com/2012/01/21/morroco-angry-unemployed-graduates-set-themselves-on-fire-threaten-collective-suicide/

Re: Israel says ... Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon - CSMonitor.com] [1 Attachment]]

"How" prey tell, is Russia, the United States, England, France, or any other nuclear capable Nation-State "hiding" their nuclear enrichment program(s)? Most of these referenced programs are well documented on the web. Some even have 24/7 web cams.

I don't think anyone questions Iran's province, ability or right to being present in the Straights of Hormuz. When Iran starts military manuevers, with the intent to mine the Straight, or interfere with international shipping, then there is a concern, and it needs to be brought to "Monkey Man's" attention that the world won't play that game, nor allow Iran to intimidate. The Straights of Hormuz are international waters, by treaty, and by international need and demand. The Straights of Hormuz are not Iranian waters. Just as twelve or fifteen miles off of the coast of Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, these waters are not United States' domestic waters. We have a vested interest in anything that happens in the Gulf of Mexico, but we have no dominion to challenge or attack any shipping outside of our twelve mile limit.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

Given that the Straights of Hormuz are in fact Iranian home waters and
that ALL international traffic must pass through the unquestioned
territorial waters of Iran their presence in them should be no more of
a surprise than a US vessel in the Canadian waters of Sault Ste.
Marie. There is NOTHING arrogant about them being there. Monkey Man
does have an arrogant attitude about EVERYTHING.

Should there be any concern that EVERY country in the world hides its'
nuclear enrichment facilities?? yes. Should that include Iran..yes.
Should that concern be given any more weight than it is in Argentina,
Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands,
North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (and a couple of the USSRs' ex
Satellites), the United Kingdom, and the United States Belgium, Italy,
Spain, Lybia, Niger, Australia, etc. ...I think not.

The US does have a "bunker buster" that goes down three hundred
feet... If it does become a problem. These facilities and the massive
activity they require are not "Hide-able".

On Jan 22, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was a thoughtful article by Dan Murphy, and for the most part, I
> agree with him. I actually agree with PlainOl.....I think.
>
> As Murphy pointed out:
>

> "*The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told

> the Financial Times' German edition yesterday: 'What we know suggests the

> development of nuclear weapons' ".*

>
> This is cause for concern. At least to most Americans, who are familiar
> with the region and the theocratic regime in Tehran.
>
> Nevertheless, the distinction, is that I don't see (or hear) ANYONE (other
> than maybe Rick Santorum, and Santorum's even set preconditions for such an
> attack) calling for an immediate attack on Iran. Should there by concern
> over the fact that Iran seems to be hiding their research and development
> over their nuclear enrichment program? Absolutely.
>
> I do think that collectively as a people, and as a Nation, we have learned
> that, "Nation Building" don't work! We are not all that eager to engage
> another theocratic Nation-State when we haven't even concluded whatever the
> Hell it is that we are doing in Afghanistan, and especially if there is no
> visible, obvious, clear convincing danger posed to the United States
> and/or the world, I'm not hearing anyone suggest that an attack on Iran is
> imminent. Even the article that Murphy references written by Helprin in
> the WSJ is not calling for an imminent attack on Iran.
>
> We would neverhtless be fools not to watch with interest what takes place
> and transpires in that region of the world. Iran's recent arrogant
> military manuevers in the Straights of Hormuz should have been dealt with,
> and forcefully. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out attack on
> Iran.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, plainolamerican

> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Diplomats and leaders, from President
> > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back
> > awhile
> > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start
> > than to
> > get out of.
> > ---
> > those who want war should go expediently
>
> > the peaceful will not miss them
>
> > On Jan 22, 6:28 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > --------
>
> > >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/452210
>
> > > By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
> > > posted January 19, 2012 at 11:57 am EST
>
> > > The war drums on Iran continue to beat onward. Hawkish editorials and
> > > opinion pieces adopt the style and content of articles from a decade ago,
> > > in which a Middle Eastern country run by a "madman" was on the brink of
> > > obtaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that would almost
> > > certainly be used to threaten the security of the world.
>
> > > The older articles were about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction
> > > that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had (except he didn't). The current
> > > crop are about Iran. Front and center is an op-ed by Mark Helprin in the
> > > Wall Street Journal yesterday titled "The mortal threat from Iran." He
> > > writes that the "primitive religious fanatics" who rule Iran don't think
> > > rationally about their own nation's interests, and that, absent a US
> > > attack soon, "Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an
> > > existential necessity."
>
> > > Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute in California,
> > > even echoes Condoleezza Rice's January 2003 warning that the smoking gun
> > > of an Iraqi nuclear program could be a "mushroom cloud." He writes: "We
> > > cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds
> > or
> > > less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue."
>
> > > RELATED: Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites
>
> > > To be sure, Iraq and Iran are not the same; Iran is indeed enriching
> > > uranium, a key component of a nuclear weapon. But the fear-mongering
> > > sounds the same. What today's arguments about Iran ignore, however – much
> > > as the arguments in favor of the Iraq war ignored – was the position of
> > > the US intelligence community that Iran is not currently building a
> > > nuclear weapon. The US position appears to be that Iran is seeking the
> > > ability to build a weapon, without actually taking that final step.
>
> > > Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they trying
> > to
> > > develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop
> > a
> > > nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to Iran
> > > is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."
>
> > > And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz
> > > reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a
> > > nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials
> > > will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman
> > > of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
> > > poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a
> > unilateral
> > > attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don't want to
> > > provide estimates [but] it's certainly not urgent," he said.
>
> > > To be sure, there are concerns. US, European, and Israeli officials
> > > suspect that Iran is concealing much of its nuclear work, which it
> > insists
> > > is for peaceful purposes only, and that weapons-related work that they
> > > don't know about could be taking place. The head of the International
> > > Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told the Financial Times' German
> > > edition yesterday: "What we know suggests the development of nuclear
> > > weapons," according to a Reuters translation.
>
> > > War with Iran? A briefing.
>
> > > But the flow of recent statements has been mostly in the opposite
> > > direction. Concern? Yes. Redoubled efforts to use sanctions to force more
> > > light onto Iran's nuclear activities? Yes, absolutely. Hair-on-fire
> > panic?
> > > No.
>
> > > The tone from private-sector analysts is something else, however. One of
> > > the latest examples is from Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, writing in
> > > Foreign Affairs. They even quote former Secretary of Defense Donald
> > > Rumsfeld's line about "known unknowns," (that is, things that Saddam
> > > Hussein might be hiding) being a cause to consider going to war with Iraq
> > > in February 2002.
>
> > > They write that in the case of Iran, the "known unknowns" are
> > "troubling,"
> > > and go on to outline a case for a broad US war to bring down the Islamic
> > > Republic. Having asserted that US airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear
> > > sites would probably fail in ending the program, they write: "Given the
> > > likely fallout from even a limited military strike, the question the
> > > United States should ask itself is, Why not take the next step? After
> > all,
> > > Iran's nuclear program is a symptom of a larger illness – the
> > > revolutionary fundamentalist regime in Tehran."
>
> > > They then suggest that a broad US air campaign against Iran would be
> > > popular with Iranians. "It is sometimes said that a strike would lead the
> > > population to rally around the regime. In fact, given the unpopularity of
> > > the government, it seems more likely that the population would see the
> > > regime's inability to forestall the attacks as evidence that the emperor
> > > has no clothes and is leading the country into needlessly desperate
> > > straits. If anything, Iranian nationalism and pride would stoke even more
> > > anger at the current regime."
>
> > > That flies in the face of Iranian history and what most Iranians –
> > > including members of the Green Movement – say about how the population
> > > would respond to war. While there is clearly great discontent with the
> > > regime, and many millions of Iranians would like to throw off clerical
> > > rule, the history of Iran suggests that war would probably result in an
> > > uptick in support for the regime, confronted as it would be by a hostile
> > > foreign power. When Saddam Hussein gambled that Iran was weak in the wake
> > > of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and went to war, the result was a rallying
> > > of support for the fledgling Iranian regime and a ruinous war that helped
> > > the country's new theocrats consolidate their power.
>
> > > For now, the war talk looks set to go on. But with Iranian parliamentary
> > > elections scheduled for March – a chance for the opposition to perhaps
> > > show its political strength, or another occasion for Iran's rulers to fix
> > > the results, as happened in the 2009 presidential reelection – the
> > chances
> > > of action soon are vanishingly slim. Diplomats and leaders, from
> > President
> > > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back awhile
> > > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start than
> > to
> > > get out of.
>
> > > Follow Dan Murphy on Twitter.
>
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> > > __._,_.___
> > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > > Messages in this topic (1)
> > > Recent Activity:
>
> > > New Members 2
>
> > > Visit Your Group
> > > Visit our main page!!http://www.rumormillnews.com/
>
> > > Come join the FUN!
> > > CGI - Common Grounds Independent Media
> > > Everyone can post!!
> > > RMN READER'S Forum -http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi
> > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> > > .
> > > __,_._,___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/

> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Israel says ... Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon - CSMonitor.com] [1 Attachment]]

Given that the Straights of Hormuz are in fact Iranian home waters and
that ALL international traffic must pass through the unquestioned
territorial waters of Iran their presence in them should be no more of
a surprise than a US vessel in the Canadian waters of Sault Ste.
Marie. There is NOTHING arrogant about them being there. Monkey Man
does have an arrogant attitude about EVERYTHING.

Should there be any concern that EVERY country in the world hides its'
nuclear enrichment facilities?? yes. Should that include Iran..yes.
Should that concern be given any more weight than it is in Argentina,
Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands,
North Korea, Pakistan, Russia (and a couple of the USSRs' ex
Satellites), the United Kingdom, and the United States Belgium, Italy,
Spain, Lybia, Niger, Australia, etc. ...I think not.

The US does have a "bunker buster" that goes down three hundred
feet... If it does become a problem. These facilities and the massive
activity they require are not "Hide-able".

On Jan 22, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This was a thoughtful article by Dan Murphy, and for the most part, I
> agree with him. I actually agree with PlainOl.....I think.
>
> As Murphy pointed out:
>
> "*The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told
> the Financial Times' German edition yesterday: 'What we know suggests the
> development of nuclear weapons' ".*
>
> This is cause for concern. At least to most Americans, who are familiar
> with the region and the theocratic regime in Tehran.
>
> Nevertheless, the distinction, is that I don't see (or hear) ANYONE (other
> than maybe Rick Santorum, and Santorum's even set preconditions for such an
> attack) calling for an immediate attack on Iran. Should there by concern
> over the fact that Iran seems to be hiding their research and development
> over their nuclear enrichment program? Absolutely.
>
> I do think that collectively as a people, and as a Nation, we have learned
> that, "Nation Building" don't work! We are not all that eager to engage
> another theocratic Nation-State when we haven't even concluded whatever the
> Hell it is that we are doing in Afghanistan, and especially if there is no
> visible, obvious, clear convincing danger posed to the United States
> and/or the world, I'm not hearing anyone suggest that an attack on Iran is
> imminent. Even the article that Murphy references written by Helprin in
> the WSJ is not calling for an imminent attack on Iran.
>
> We would neverhtless be fools not to watch with interest what takes place
> and transpires in that region of the world. Iran's recent arrogant
> military manuevers in the Straights of Hormuz should have been dealt with,
> and forcefully. This doesn't mean we need to have an all out attack on
> Iran.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Diplomats and leaders, from President
> > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back
> > awhile
> > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start
> > than to
> > get out of.
> > ---
> > those who want war should go expediently
>
> > the peaceful will not miss them
>
> > On Jan 22, 6:28 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > --------
>
> > >http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/452210
>
> > > By Dan Murphy, Staff writer
> > > posted January 19, 2012 at 11:57 am EST
>
> > > The war drums on Iran continue to beat onward. Hawkish editorials and
> > > opinion pieces adopt the style and content of articles from a decade ago,
> > > in which a Middle Eastern country run by a "madman" was on the brink of
> > > obtaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that would almost
> > > certainly be used to threaten the security of the world.
>
> > > The older articles were about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction
> > > that Saddam Hussein almost certainly had (except he didn't). The current
> > > crop are about Iran. Front and center is an op-ed by Mark Helprin in the
> > > Wall Street Journal yesterday titled "The mortal threat from Iran." He
> > > writes that the "primitive religious fanatics" who rule Iran don't think
> > > rationally about their own nation's interests, and that, absent a US
> > > attack soon, "Iran will get nuclear weapons, which in its eyes are an
> > > existential necessity."
>
> > > Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute in California,
> > > even echoes Condoleezza Rice's January 2003 warning that the smoking gun
> > > of an Iraqi nuclear program could be a "mushroom cloud." He writes: "We
> > > cannot dismiss the possibility of Iranian nuclear charges of 500 pounds
> > or
> > > less ending up in Manhattan or on Pennsylvania Avenue."
>
> > > RELATED: Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites
>
> > > To be sure, Iraq and Iran are not the same; Iran is indeed enriching
> > > uranium, a key component of a nuclear weapon. But the fear-mongering
> > > sounds the same. What today's arguments about Iran ignore, however – much
> > > as the arguments in favor of the Iraq war ignored – was the position of
> > > the US intelligence community that Iran is not currently building a
> > > nuclear weapon. The US position appears to be that Iran is seeking the
> > > ability to build a weapon, without actually taking that final step.
>
> > > Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they trying
> > to
> > > develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop
> > a
> > > nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to Iran
> > > is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon."
>
> > > And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz
> > > reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a
> > > nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials
> > > will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman
> > > of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
> > > poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a
> > unilateral
> > > attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don't want to
> > > provide estimates [but] it's certainly not urgent," he said.
>
> > > To be sure, there are concerns. US, European, and Israeli officials
> > > suspect that Iran is concealing much of its nuclear work, which it
> > insists
> > > is for peaceful purposes only, and that weapons-related work that they
> > > don't know about could be taking place. The head of the International
> > > Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, told the Financial Times' German
> > > edition yesterday: "What we know suggests the development of nuclear
> > > weapons," according to a Reuters translation.
>
> > > War with Iran? A briefing.
>
> > > But the flow of recent statements has been mostly in the opposite
> > > direction. Concern? Yes. Redoubled efforts to use sanctions to force more
> > > light onto Iran's nuclear activities? Yes, absolutely. Hair-on-fire
> > panic?
> > > No.
>
> > > The tone from private-sector analysts is something else, however. One of
> > > the latest examples is from Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, writing in
> > > Foreign Affairs. They even quote former Secretary of Defense Donald
> > > Rumsfeld's line about "known unknowns," (that is, things that Saddam
> > > Hussein might be hiding) being a cause to consider going to war with Iraq
> > > in February 2002.
>
> > > They write that in the case of Iran, the "known unknowns" are
> > "troubling,"
> > > and go on to outline a case for a broad US war to bring down the Islamic
> > > Republic. Having asserted that US airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear
> > > sites would probably fail in ending the program, they write: "Given the
> > > likely fallout from even a limited military strike, the question the
> > > United States should ask itself is, Why not take the next step? After
> > all,
> > > Iran's nuclear program is a symptom of a larger illness – the
> > > revolutionary fundamentalist regime in Tehran."
>
> > > They then suggest that a broad US air campaign against Iran would be
> > > popular with Iranians. "It is sometimes said that a strike would lead the
> > > population to rally around the regime. In fact, given the unpopularity of
> > > the government, it seems more likely that the population would see the
> > > regime's inability to forestall the attacks as evidence that the emperor
> > > has no clothes and is leading the country into needlessly desperate
> > > straits. If anything, Iranian nationalism and pride would stoke even more
> > > anger at the current regime."
>
> > > That flies in the face of Iranian history and what most Iranians –
> > > including members of the Green Movement – say about how the population
> > > would respond to war. While there is clearly great discontent with the
> > > regime, and many millions of Iranians would like to throw off clerical
> > > rule, the history of Iran suggests that war would probably result in an
> > > uptick in support for the regime, confronted as it would be by a hostile
> > > foreign power. When Saddam Hussein gambled that Iran was weak in the wake
> > > of the 1979 Islamic Revolution and went to war, the result was a rallying
> > > of support for the fledgling Iranian regime and a ruinous war that helped
> > > the country's new theocrats consolidate their power.
>
> > > For now, the war talk looks set to go on. But with Iranian parliamentary
> > > elections scheduled for March – a chance for the opposition to perhaps
> > > show its political strength, or another occasion for Iran's rulers to fix
> > > the results, as happened in the 2009 presidential reelection – the
> > chances
> > > of action soon are vanishingly slim. Diplomats and leaders, from
> > President
> > > Obama to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will sit back awhile
> > > and watch to see if sanctions are working, if the regime will start to
> > > unravel from within, well aware that wars are much easier to start than
> > to
> > > get out of.
>
> > > Follow Dan Murphy on Twitter.
>
> > > ------------------------------------
>
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> > > __._,_.___
> > > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> > > Messages in this topic (1)
> > > Recent Activity:
>
> > > New Members 2
>
> > > Visit Your Group
> > > Visit our main page!!http://www.rumormillnews.com/
>
> > > Come join the FUN!
> > > CGI - Common Grounds Independent Media
> > > Everyone can post!!
> > > RMN READER'S Forum -http://www.rayelan.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi
> > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> > > .
> > > __,_._,___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: the difference

Why would you care what Newt's personal life is, or has been? I'm looking for a President that can lead, and make this Nation and its people once again the envy of the world. To motivate and to inspire. To assist in making our standard of living the highest of any in the world.

I don't see any other candidate in 2012 that fits that bill, other than Newt Gingrich.

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:59 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

newt the motivator!

among other things

On Jan 20, 11:14 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Newt is the only conservative candidate that can motivate this Nation once
> again, especially after the last twenty years of Presidents.
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:03 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > It's actually a very old story and it should surprise no one. He now
> > has the young trophy wife -- and the bonus is that "God has forgiven
> > him."
>
> > life is good to newt
>
> > On Jan 20, 6:59 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Both men were having affairs while cheating on their wives. The
> > > difference is that Gingrich's cheating was going on at the exact same
> > > time that he was leading the impeachment proceedings against Clinton
> > > for doing the same thing.
> > > The difference is that Gingrich has always put himself forward as a
> > > family values candidate who believes in the sanctity of marriage.
> > > Clinton never did that.
>
> > > Can you picture a swinger as the first lady?
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Fwd: Clip on American Foreign Policy - Should All American Citizens See This Video ??!!

An effective little video PlainOl, however it's misleading.

It is true that our soldiers are occupiers.

We have occupied Afghanistan, because its former government was taken over by a group of foreign invaders that allowed for the training of international military forces to to train in Afghanistan, and those forces eventually attacked our Nation.

We stopped those foreign invaders, (the Taliban) and we shut down the training grounds in Afghanistan.

If there had been a Paul Administration, it's questionable as to whether we would have seen fit to have stopped the training grounds, or whether the attacks on American soil would have ceased.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

Americans have no need for foreign troops on our soil, we won't
tolerate
that, it
---
too late

On Jan 20, 11:04 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's called "invasion"; and an act of war, which is what we did in Iraq,
> because the Saddam Hussein/Baath Party was a danger to the world, including
> the United States.
>
> The Taiban was training suicidal bombers to come and bomb the United
> States, even after the events at 9/11. We said "ENOUGH"!
>
> Top that off with the big big feeling of "Let's Go Kick Some Ass, We All
> Wanna Little Revenge" right after 9/11.
>
> Americans have no need for foreign troops on our soil, we won't tolerate
> that, it violates every principal of our very core, our very foundation.
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a
> > large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that
> > thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American
> > streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the
> > auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting
> > their strategic interests."
>
> > Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the
> > Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then
> > they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed
> > or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most
> > of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine
> > that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and
> > ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were
> > fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America
> > would be better off without their presence.
>
> > Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that
> > they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our
> > soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were
> > unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists
> > or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or
> > captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that
> > the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans,
> > the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten
> > more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual
> > bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also
> > wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader
> > who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.
>
> > Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.
>
> > The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as
> > offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would
> > be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here,
> > but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign
> > policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards
> > us.
>
> > According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the
> > prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-
> > evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a
> > right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do
> > so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in
> > some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on
> > our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are
> > military installations. The new administration is not materially
> > changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with
> > semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who
> > simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind
> > in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian
> > soldiers would be in the United States.
>
> > Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations
> > with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite.
> > Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the
> > foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy
> > that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most
> > definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in
> > the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad
> > thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome's did,
> > when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted
>
> > On Jan 20, 7:47 am, Pradeep Sharma <pradeep.pradeepsha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Clip on American Foreign Policy - Should All American Citizens See This
> > > Video ??!!
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao461iG9UsA
>
> > > __._,_.___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.